Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A response to the Guide to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan

By Graeme Batten - posted Wednesday, 17 November 2010


Water is Australia’s most vital asset. Its significance was recognised at Federation in 1901 when the population of this country was only 3.8 million. In a century our population increased to 19 million and is over 22 million in 2010. Concurrent with the increase in the population has been explosion of irrigation in recent times and a widening appreciation of the need to protect the river systems which supply the irrigation water and must be protected as assets in their own right.

Today we are debating the role of water in the future of our country. The issues which must be considered simultaneously are –

  1. The over-allocation of water in some river systems;
  2. The historic variability of run off into streams;
  3. The predictions that rainfall will change (is changing?) due to global warming;
  4. The prediction that the population of Australia will increase by 38 to 87% (to 31 to 42 million) by 2056 (ABS data);
  5. The anxiety in the community about food safety and food security;
  6. The need to define what a sustainable Australia will look like;
  7. The future of regional Australia and the future for Australians who work in and manage regional area; and
  8. Where to direct funds to research, develop and manage growth so that we live within our means as dictated by the amount and the distribution of our water resources.
Advertisement

Above all it is vital that the future uses of the water resource across the whole continent must be carefully planned now and changes set in place to minimise the impacts on the environment, on food security and on regional and city communities. Therefore, the current debate on water allocations, prompted by the Guide to the Proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan, is of utmost importance to every Australia.

It is no surprise that the suggested reductions in water allocations listed on page xxiv of The Guide have polarised the debate and prompted the strong reactions we are seeing at public meetings. The suggested time frame of 5 years to "phase in" the suggested Sustainable Diversion limits (SDLs) (The Guide page xxix) is totally unrealistic. A simple and rapid reduction in water allocations to irrigation communities is not acceptable unless the effects are countered by measures that lead to improved water delivery and utilization efficiencies.

For the Basin Plan to benefit the maximum possible number of Australians is must

  1. Have input from all stakeholder;
  2. Be based on good science;
  3. Set out clear goals agreed to by all parties;
  4. Include support for a) ongoing research, b) extension of information and c) incentives to prompt the adoption of the water efficiency measures in both regional and urban Australia. Research is an investment which repays handsomely. The rewards continue into the future.

If water allocations are suddenly reduced then there is a risk that more water than in recent years will be transferred from the growing of staple foods such as rice, wheat, canola and soybeans to non-staple (in some cases "luxury") products such as wine grapes or to crops which give a high return per megalitre but for which there is a risk of oversupply and therefore a price penalty in the market place.

Irrigators deserve recognition for the gains they have made already.

Advertisement

Irrigators have clearly demonstrated they have the ability to produce more staple food such as rice or more money from the available water. For example, between 1980 and 2000 rice growers doubled the amount of rice they produced from each megalitre of water. In the last 10 years further gains have been achieved despite serious cutbacks in research funding and severe losses of research and extension staff from state and federal agencies.

Gains continue to be made.

Very high yields of rice can be obtained using new fast growing rice varieties. Even more encouraging is recent work which demonstrated that rice does not need ponded conditions in the first half of its life. And the rice growing season is now shorter than in the past leading to water savings.

Within any irrigation district the choice of crops which is seen today is based on the climate, the soils, the availability of extracted water and many years of genetic and agronomic research. Many of the "alternative" cropping options have been evaluated in the past and there are sound reasons for farmers not growing them. This situation is not unique to Australian farmers. In short there is a lot to be gained from seeking greater water use efficiency from the crops which are grown at present.

Regardless of the allocations which are set in the future there will be times of drought during which the gains in efficiency achieved today will more than repay the funds spent to achieve these gains. This approach will also make best use of the capital works already in place.

The record drought of the past 7 years has led to efficiencies in water utilization through changes in practices such as intermittent, as opposed to continuous, flooding of rice fields and adjustments to the mix of crops which received extracted water. The majority of the higher value vegetable, vine and tree crops are now grown with very efficient drip systems.

But even here there are new technologies on the drawing boards which will lead to even more efficient use of water. The NWC Peter Cullen Eureka Prize for Water Research and Innovation in 2010 was awarded to Professor Bruce Sutton and A/Professor Gregory Leslie. Their environmentally-friendly piping system can deliver water at the rate the plants need it. This system can overcome the current need to apply water that is not taken up by plants.

The current debate recognises that extracted water in the MDB is overcommitted. The MDB is "only" 14% of the land area of Australia it is the predominant food bowl of Australia and produces 39% of the agricultural production. There have been calls such as that by Senator Heffernan about 6 years to relocate some irrigation production, possibly to the northern regions of Australia. This option should be re-visited and considered as part of the Sustainable Australia debate.

The overall aim for the current water debate should be better water use across Australia. This is in the long term interest of all Australians as we seek food security whilst we minimise the impact on the environmental with least disruption to highly productive agricultural communities.

The MDB is a living-working basin and decisions must be accepted by the majority of stakeholders.

Stakeholders in the water debate can reasonably expect goals to be set for all uses of water. This is essential so that the advantages and disadvantages of any re-allocation of water can be judged in the future. This means that goals for environmental uses of reallocated water must be stated and debated. At present the debate seems to be focussed on what happens to irrigators and their communities if allocations for irrigation are reduced.

Goals for improving water use efficiency by irrigators, industry and communities also need to be stated and debated. As an example of the goals for irrigation crops I have included Table 1. Similar goals are needed for water diverted or preserved for environmental purposes and water diverted to cities, towns and industry even if these are relatively small consumers compared to the irrigation industry.

There will be general support for a reduction in SDLs (sustainable diversion limits) if users are able to achieve more efficient utilization of the water available. This would be a sound investment in Australia’s future because it would allow more water to be allocated for (defined) environmental benefits. But possibly of even greater importance, a more efficient irrigation industry would have a built in’ insurance measure’ for future drought years when allocations would be low by necessity.

If irrigators and the communities their activities support are to adjust to SDLs which are up to 45% below current SDLs they cannot be expected to do this on their own. Significant improvements in water use efficiency across the MDB can be achieved if:

  1. Sufficient time is allowed to achieve the efficiencies sought,
  2. There is a willingness on the part of State and Federal Governments, in cooperation with all sectors of the irrigation industry, to fund research and development of water-efficient irrigation

    · low water-demanding crop management practices,

    · infrastructure maintenance and upgrades (such as piping of open channels),

    · learning at all levels (University, TAFE, industry) as research and the extension of knowledge underpins the changes needed.

    With current knowledge savings of up to 30-40 % may be possible with some crops on some soils. Further work is need to identify and realise ways to achieve further gains.

To achieve an outcome which benefits the majority of Australians it is vital that the debate on the future of water in Australia, not just in the MDB, be all inclusive. The current debate must be based on the vision for the future of Australia, so that all Australians have ownership of their future and move forward with confidence that they have their share of the nation’s water, food, environmental benefits and other advantages which planning can guarantee. There is more at stake than the health of the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Table 1. Suggestions for debate on how much irrigation water is required for some crops in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (ML/Ha). In addition to the water use figures the profits per ML taking into account elasticity effects, and the flow on benefits to communities and food prices need to be considered.

Crop

Current Average Water Use (ML/ha/season)

Current Best Farmer Water Use (ML/ha/season)

Minimum Possible Water Use (ML/ha/season)*

Summer crops

 

 

 

Carrot

4-6

4

3-4

Citrus

6

3

2.5-3

Corn / Maize

9

8

 

Grapes

5

2-3

1-2

Lucerne

11

9

 

Onions

5-6

4

4

Potatoes

6-8

6

5-6

Pumpkin

5

4

4

Rice

14

11

10

Stone Fruit (Prunes, Peaches)

8.5

5-6

 

Tomatoes

6-7

4-5

4

* The figures in this column indicate the minimum amount of irrigation water which a crop needs. These data do not allow for different irrigation systems, yearly rainfall variation, soil types or crop duration differences. The best farmers are already using very efficient delivery systems. Data from Charles Sturt University; NSW Agriculture; CSIRO Land & Water; leading producers.

Citation: Batten, G. and Katupitiya, A. (2004) Wealth from water: A regional perspective. pp 49-58 in G. Batten and J. Kent Eds. "Wealth from Water" Wagga Wagga Chamber of Commerce and Charles Sturt University, (2004)

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graeme D Batten is an Honorary Professor at the University of Sydney and an Adjunct Professor of Irrigation at Charles Sturt University. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Secretary The Australian Near Infrared Spectroscopy Group.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graeme Batten
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy